Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-16/Blogger rescue

I have recently experienced something remarkably similar, between the creation and saving of an outline stub page and returning from the coffee machine with a cup of coffee to find a deletion tag on the article. Sjc 09:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sjc is referring to this edit: [1] Haukur 11:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Examples of inappropriate deletions. This is not an NPOV statement. It should re reworded as Examples of perceived inappropriate deletions . In addition, the Pownce deletion had nothing to do with being "less notable than Wikipedia", and all to do with having nothing to indicate in the article that it was notable, other than its founder. And in fact, the site is still in beta, isn't it? Corvus cornix 17:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessarily contorted to write the sentence that way. It's a description of the purpose of their activity, and the purpose is to collect examples of inappropriate deletions, not to collect examples of perceived inappropriate deletions. If there had been active debate about the quality of the examples, I'd have considered including that.

Meanwhile, I'm not here to argue with you about whether proper process was followed with respect to Pownce. I would guess that's part of their point, that following process is sometimes leading to undesirable results — in their view, deletion of "ill-formed" or "stubby" articles on "perfectly notable topics". Like Pownce, if it qualifies as a notable topic, and that's an issue I don't have time for and have expressed no conclusion about. But since you mention it, Gmail is still in beta, isn't it? --Michael Snow 18:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point.  :) But Pownce is in closed beta. Corvus cornix 18:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, putting it that way makes a better case. --Michael Snow 19:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)